memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
Provisional categories Starships, etc I suggest a number of categories for ships and shuttles. *Category:POWER starships, where POWER is Federation (or Starfleet?), Klingon, Romulan and perhaps something like Alpha and Beta Quadrant starships for minor vessels. Supercategory is simply Category:Starships. *Category:Starship classes. I believe there are few enough alien class-names to allow everything into one category. Otherwise, add the POWER starship classes categories analogous to above. *Category:Small craft *Category:Small craft classes? -- Harry 15:29, 31 Jan 2005 (CET) :I support Starship classes (without subcategories at the moment) and Starships with subcategories POWER starships. In this case, we should define a rough minimum of individual starships necessary to warrant an own subsection. I don't agree to A&BQ starships, because that would be a different sort of division (political vs. geographical) - all starships of powers that don't have their own subsection should be listed directly at Starships. I don't really know what to make of the "small craft" categories, could you be a little more specific here? -- Cid Highwind 17:47, 2005 Jan 31 (CET) "Small craft" is for shuttles, pods, etc. Partially based on list of Federation shuttlecraft, but also including the small number of alien shuttles. -- Harry 18:11, 31 Jan 2005 (CET) :No objections, apparently. Regarding the "POWER starships" categories, I suggest to start with a minimum of ten individual ships for an own subcategory, otherwise those ships should be added to the main category "Starships". If this turns out to be a bad choice, we can always add smaller subcategories after further discussion. I will create Category:Starships and Category:Starship classes now. What still needs to be discussed: Should the subcategory be named "Federation starships" or "Starfleet starships"? -- Cid Highwind 10:54, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT) ::I agree, watching Pd THOR adding all the Starfleet ships... I think Klingon, Romulan, Starfleet, and Other should be subcategories. I agree about the main craft and minor craft subcategories, but I do not like the name POWER Craft, I don't think it defines the category well. ::If you can think of another race (Cardasian?) with a justifiable list of named craft they should be added as well. | Talah Blue 20:06, 22 Feb 2005 (GMT) ::: I considered eschewing action until the discussed subcategorization had taken place; but the general Starships category page states: "The following is a list of all starships - more specific lists are linked to from the main article.". ::: I hope I'm not ruffling anybody's feathers by adding those categorizations... | THOR 20:29, 22 Feb 2005 (GMT) ::::::Does anyone want to use this discussion to try and spawn some of these newer starship categories as new suggestions before it is archived (as Category:Starships is enacted. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 18:02, 16 Mar 2005 (EST) Category:Performers redux Now, after having created and tested several different categories, I want to bring up "Performers" again. The original discussion didn't come to any agreement (see: Memory Alpha talk:Category tree/Tree suggestions), and the prematurely created categories still exist. I suggest (again) to create just one category for performers. No SERIES performers and definitely no SERIES SEASON performers categories. I still believe that both subcategorizations are too arbitrary in this case, because several performers (1 performer = 1 person) appeared in different series and many of them in different seasons. -- Cid Highwind 23:56, 2005 Jan 22 (CET) :I agree that season performers is a bad idea, but I know that the Performers cat will get significantly large, and will need to be broken up somehow. Perhaps we can wait until the cat is full and new subcats will reveal themselves. Drhaggis 00:22, 23 Jan 2005 (CET) If you read the early discussions that were moved to the page I mentioned above, you will see that I think that "breaking up" categories just because they are too big is not a good idea. I think that related categories should be "exclusive" - any article should belong to either one or the other, not to both at the same time. Perhaps there are possible subcategories for performers working that way, but I think that, at the moment, it would be best to just use one category. -- Cid Highwind 16:22, 2005 Jan 23 (CET) :I've read much of the early discussions and can only determine that there are no real conclusions on how to approach categorizations. It is infact very good policy to break up large categories, providing that the sub categories are useful, significantly populated and logical. Unfortunately one can not always guess what sort of data one wants to pull from the wiki. Having "XYX season #" categories is silly because many actors span seasons and series, resulting in overcategorization. I think having a "Performers" cat with a "main performers" sub cat would be a really good start. Drhaggis 19:32, 23 Jan 2005 (CET) ::I believe this is a valid category, but I support series performers. I think lumping the performers from all the series together will be too unwieldy. What if someone does appear in more than one series? So they have more than one category entry. I don't see what's wrong with that. I do feel, after some reflection, that splitting it down to the season is too finely grained. -- Balok 01:21, 29 Jan 2005 (CET) :::I definitely support having this category. I think we can start by having this one and then later start with series perfomers. But no one seems to disagree with a performers category. --Dalen 09:32, 13 Mar 2005 (GMT) OK, there seems to be some "sort of" consensus for Performers + Series Performers + No Series Season Performers. To finally bring an end to this discussion, I suggest to create the first two types and remove existing categories of the last type at the end of this week, unless there are further objections. -- Cid Highwind 08:14, 21 Mar 2005 (EST) category:Reference works Based on Reference Works (or at least the Books section of that page). Alternatively, Books, Periodicals, Biographies might become sub-categories. -- Harry 17:17, 31 Jan 2005 (CET) :I support the category, but Books wouldn't be a good subcategory here - that one sounds more like a supercategory for both Reference works and Novels. I'd prefer Reference books to "works", though. That way, we could have the aforementioned supercategory Books for these reference books, novels and biographies. -- Cid Highwind 17:39, 2005 Jan 31 (CET) ::::::Any further thoughts or should Category:Reference works / Category:Books / Category:Reference books suggestion be archived, voted on or resubmitted? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:43, 16 Mar 2005 (EST) :: I'd like to add my support to: * Category:Reference books * Category:Novels * Category:Games * Category:Comics :: These would be contained in whatever supercategory which would end up containing Category:Episodes and Category:Movies (as per the "Meta-Trek" category suggestion) -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 22:31, 16 Mar 2005 (EST) :::I, too, support those four categories and their possible supercategory. -- Cid Highwind 08:40, 21 Mar 2005 (EST) Suggested categories List categories with existing "List of ..." article Suggesting whole category trees obviously leads to lengthy discussions. This is a necessary process, of course, but to get things started another parallel approach might be useful. My suggestion is the following: If a "List of X" already exists, and if this list is unannotated (just links to articles, no additional text for each entry, no pairs of links, etc.), then suggest the most generic form of this list as a new category below (for example, don't suggest "24th century starfleet personnel" or "inhabited planets" yet, just "starfleet personnel" (or "personnel"?) or "planets". You might want to add your opinion about possible sub- and super-categories, but those comments shouldn't be considered mandatory or obligatory yet. Each editor may vote on that suggestion: *'Agree' - No further comments necessary *'Disagree' - only if the suggested category violates the rules stated above or you want to suggest a better name, please comment on your reasons If, at least 5 days after your initial suggestion, there are no unresolved disagreements and at least one agreement, you may create the suggested category. For the moment, don't delete the original "List of X" article - this can be done later. -- Cid Highwind 23:08, 22 Dec 2004 (CET) category:Species Possible subs: sentient species, non-sentient, etc.. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 22:01, 27 Dec 2004 (CET) :I would suggest life-forms instead, since "species" is a rather specific biological term. I agree with the split into "sentient" and "non-sentient", and then the subgroups that have already been established for those two. -- EtaPiscium 00:29, 28 Dec 2004 (CET) ::Life-forms might be a rather inclusive topic. I'd like to see a bit finer granularity. But I do agree that 'life-form' is a better choice than 'species'. Inasmuch as there's no list right now, I'd recommend deferring this category until some of the list based ones are up and running, and we have some experience to build on. -- Balok 02:02, 28 Dec 2004 (CET) :Which existing "List of ..." article should be the basis of this category? Please link to it in your suggestion, as explained above. Otherwise, please move your suggestion to another section. Thanks. (Clarification: I '''disagree' with this suggestion for technical purposes. I tried to define a relatively strict procedure with a narrow focus to allow the "least controversial" list categories to pass quickly. For this suggestion to belong in this section (instead of "Category tree suggestions", for example) a generic "List of species" should exist, which IMO is not the case.) -- Cid Highwind 00:41, 2004 Dec 28 (CET) ::Oh, in that case I think it's premature to create this category, since it doesn't correspond to any current list. -- EtaPiscium 00:52, 28 Dec 2004 (CET) ::There are the "List of X Quadrant species" articles, but I agree that these aren't the easiest lists. I also vote premature. -- Harry 16:58, 2 Jan 2005 (CET) :::I agree its premature, but heres my opinion anyway... :::*Life-forms ::::*Humanoid ''(This would list federation species and all others. The question is do shape-shifters go here...) ::::*flora & fauna (A List of all plants and animals mentioned in show, could be two, but as most only have a line written about them or the space is blank...) ::::*Other Life-forms (non-corporeal could be its own as there are so many, but this relates back to the same thing I said about flora and fauna. Includes non carbon based life-forms. Such as these could be subsets of the subset.) --140.228.103.148 20:23, 6 Feb 2005 (CET) ::::::Any further thoughts or should Category:Species suggestion be archived or resubmitted? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:43, 16 Mar 2005 (EST) Category for "Meta-Trek" (name to be found) An important category would be one collecting all articles we call "Meta-Trek". This category would be the supercategory for categories such as "Episodes", "Movies", "Performers", but should also be used to collect the various articles about Star Trek as a franchise (including the "List of Trek actors birthdays", the "List of 47 references" etc.). I don't really like the title "Meta-Trek" as a name for this category, though. I'd like to suggest Category:Production information, but perhaps you can think of a better title? -- Cid Highwind 11:46, 2005 Jan 20 (CET) :Production information is fine by me. Or perhaps something like Category:About Star Trek? -- Harry 20:33, 20 Jan 2005 (CET) :I agree that we need to group "Episodes." "Movies," "Books," together. I suggest Category:Source Media. Everything here is about Star Trek. Drhaggis 02:20, 22 Jan 2005 (CET) ::Let's simplify that -- either Category:Sources or Category:Media -- if we choose "sources" for all of our canon episodes and productions, then media can be all other forms of star trek: licensed novels; games; and comics; as well as the various companies that make them. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 02:24, 22 Jan 2005 (CET) :Splitting canon from non-canon is a must. Should we include that distiction in the category? Category:Canon Sources and Category:Additional Media perhaps? Too much? Drhaggis 03:06, 22 Jan 2005 (CET) Since "canon" isn't a concept we have to define (although a definition of it is reprinted here), and since we already have a page defining valid resources, I don't really see the logic in adding this concept to the suggestion of a category to simply distinguish "in-universe" from "out-of-universe" articles. Keep in mind that a "Canon source" category couldn't simply include the "Episodes" category, for example, because that one contains the "non-canon" TAS episodes. By the way, the canon policy page uses the term Trek franchise - we could either use that one as our category name or should change that page to contain the name we choose here. -- Cid Highwind 00:08, 2005 Jan 23 (CET) Any other opinions? After thinking about it again, I prefer Trek franchise to the earlier suggestion Production information - it better matches the intended scope of the category as a collection of everything that is not in-universe (and it is a term already used elsewhere). About Star Trek is a close contender. -- Cid Highwind 21:51, 2005 Jan 27 (CET) ::::::Any votes or should * Category:Meta-Trek * Category:About Star Trek * Category:Trek franchise * Category:Production * Category:Production information * Category:Source media * Category:Canon sources * Category:Sources * Category:Media * Category:Additional media suggestions be archived or resubmitted? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:43, 16 Mar 2005 (EST) ::This discussion has become a little off-topic I think. If we can reach consensus to create either Trek franchise or Production information, we should do so. Otherwise, archive this discussion for the moment. -- Cid Highwind 08:43, 21 Mar 2005 (EST) :I'd like to call a quick vote here for a new idea i had before this is potentially shelved -- how about Category:Star Trek -- this category would simply use the name of the franchise as a whole .. "Star Trek" -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 10:44, 27 Mar 2005 (EST) Television Category We there should be a Category: Television Series or similar to collect together the existing Category: Episodes, and to place the master article for each series. Drhaggis 22:07, 22 Jan 2005 (CET) :Isn't Category:Episodes exactly what you are describing? It contains the 6 "series subcategories" and could contain additional information about "episodes" in general... -- Cid Highwind 23:47, 2005 Jan 22 (CET) I'm thinking more like *Undetermined "Top-level Media" Category **Television Shows ***Episodes **Movies **Books **Video Games TV shows is where we place the episodes category, any lists of episodes, all the articles on the existing tv shows, Info on Star Trek: Phase II, any "list of X episodes" articles. Drhaggis 00:17, 23 Jan 2005 (CET) :What else would the Television Shows category contain, apart from one link to the episodes category? The Media category might be useful, but that is already being discussed in the above section. I don't see the for a Television Shows category, since we already have Category:Episodes. -- Harry 23:48, 23 Jan 2005 (CET) Where else would we categorize master articles such as Star Trek: Voyager and their ilk? It would also hold any documentaries and specials and allow for a cross-ref with all television list categories. For example "List of XXX episodes" would go in Category: Lists and Category: Television Shows as Wikipedia does it. Is Episodes a top level category? Drhaggis 00:23, 24 Jan 2005 (CET) :Well, in the unnamed category for "out-of-universe" information that I suggested above, I guess? It would contain the "Episodes" category directly; I don't think we need another category layer between these two categories. "Books" (or better yet, "Novels" and "Reference books"?) would be another good subcategory, though. Regarding Wikipedia, keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia "about everything", including many television series. Memory Alpha is an encyclopedia about just six - we probably don't need the same level of detail as Wikipedia. Episodes would not be a top level category, but a subcategory of Trek franchise (or whatever name we choose). -- Cid Highwind 21:39, 2005 Jan 27 (CET) Star Trek: Voyager would be considered "out-of-universe"? Odd. It may actually be easier to determine the lowest level categories first. Once most articles are categorized, forming and changing the tree is less painfull. Do we honestly think that we can "lock" the tree in place on a Wiki? Come to think of it it is less like a tree because several of the smaller nodes will cross. Drhaggis 03:10, 28 Jan 2005 (CET) :Of course... How could an article about a series (movie/novel/...) set in a fictional universe be a part of that universe? The events happening in that series are, but the series itself is not. :Regarding the suggested procedure, I think we are having this discussion page exactly because we know that we can't "lock" the tree completely - but by discussing all ideas first instead of simply implementing any or all of them, we're avoiding much redundant work and categories that simply don't make sense... -- Cid Highwind 12:03, 2005 Jan 28 (CET) ::::::Any further thoughts or should Category:Television series suggestion be archived, voted on or resubmitted? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:43, 16 Mar 2005 (EST) :I vote to archive this discussion - the possible scope of this category in addition to the episode categories we already have is still unclear to me. -- Cid Highwind 08:46, 21 Mar 2005 (EST) Category:Non-sentient animals I think this could be a good category, filled with references to all the non-sentient creatures from Star Trek, such as Spot, Butler and even Picard's Lionfish Livingstone. What does anyone else think? zsingaya 15:33, 30 Jan 2005 (CET) :Is this a suggestion for a "list" of individual pets? In that case, I'd suggest another category title, Domestic animals (or Pets, although I'd prefer the former). If it is a category of "animal species", it should be called that, (or "non-sentient species", perhaps) - but in that case, the category shouldn't contain any individual animals... -- Cid Highwind 18:40, 2005 Jan 30 (CET) Well, there are references to individual animals, perhaps a category showing the different non-sentient animals in Star Trek would be useful, because it could then link to the individual animals. I'm not sure how many official pets were mentioned, off the top of my head, I can only think of Spot, Butler, Picard's fish, Janeway's Dog, Archer's Dog Porthos, although I'm sure there must be more. There must be a way to integrate them with un-named non-sentient species, such as Targ. zsingaya 21:25, 30 Jan 2005 (CET) :The problem is that one category for both "individual animals" and "animal species" would be mixing two completely different concepts - a similar idea would be to have one category for both Worf (a member of one sentient species) and Romulans, Ferengi and Bajorans (other sentient species). Also, I think that "non-sentient animals" would be a redundant title. Aren't animals non-sentient by definition? -- Cid Highwind 22:22, 2005 Jan 30 (CET) ::There already is a List of pets and a List of non-sentient lifeforms I'm not sure anything else is needed. Tyrant 22:31, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant :OK then, looks like there's no point. Thanks anyway. zsingaya 13:04, 31 Jan 2005 (CET) A list is not a category. "Pets" might be the most specific name for such a grouping. I vote for a Category: Pets. It would be a sub-category of a larger "animalia" type group I would think. Drhaggis 08:02, 1 Feb 2005 (CET) ::::::Any further thoughts or should these be archived, voted on or resubmitted? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:43, 16 Mar 2005 (EST) Starfleet I'd like to add a category for Starfleet subdivisions like Unit XY-75847. Perhaps Category:Starfleet, but that might have the tendency to overlap with too many other categories. Category:Military units might work too. Any other suggestions? -- Harry 15:29, 31 Jan 2005 (CET) :I definitely prefer the second suggestion - "Starfleet" would be too broad as a category title, and the second one would allow us to also list units and groups of other powers (if those exist). I don't have any suggestions regarding the exact title, but it should cover, for example, Star Fleet Battle Group Omega and the Starfleet Fleets. -- Cid Highwind 11:25, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT) Earth Category:Earth. with list subcategory Category:Earth cities. The cities category would cover the numerous Earth cities mentioned, and the broader Earth category would cover other aspects of the planet -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:22, 8 Mar 2005 (GMT) * would addiotional subcategory Category:Earth regions be prefereable for all of our nation, state and continent/island articles? * further subcategories could be applied for Category:Earth lifeforms. * would this be an opening for our first Category:People species category - a Category:Humans listing? :Does anyone have any further input whether or not i should create these categories? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 10:19, 13 Mar 2005 (GMT) ::I definitely agree with creating an Earth category. The other four suggestions might be sensible as well, depending on the actual need for them... -- Cid Highwind 08:23, 21 Mar 2005 (EST)